Rehosted and hotlinked webcomics will be removed, unless you are the creator. Please submit a link to the original comic's site, and possibly a mirror in the comments. Tumblr-exclusive comics are the exception, and may be rehosted, however if the artist's name or watermark are removed, the post will be removed. (*)(*)

14. No SMS or Social Media Content (including Reddit)

This includes direct linking to reddit threads, reddit comments, other subreddits, facebook profiles, twitter profiles, tweets, embedded tweets, and screenshots of the above, including text messages, omegle, instagram and others. This also includes any other sites that may be considered social network sites. Please read the announcement.

Hate speech and bigotry will be removed at the moderators' discretion.

Serial reposters may be filtered

What do I do if I see a post that breaks the rules?

Click on the report button, and send us a message with a link to the comments of the post.

What should I do if I don't see my post in the new queue?

If your submission isn't showing up, please don't just delete it as that makes the filter hate you! Instead please send us a message with a link to the post. We'll unban it and it should get better. Please allow 10 minutes for the post to appear before messaging moderators

Infidelity and serial murder are totally equivalent. How did I not cotton onto this before now? Oh wow, Ted Bundy was a real piece of work. Not only was he raping and killing college co-eds and hitchhikers, but he was doing it all behind his girlfriend's back, the fucking monster.

Sure, serial killer is an incredibly extreme example, but it's not like nobody gets hurt when someone cheats.

Saying, "who are you to judge a cheater" is like saying "who are you to judge that person who punched another person?" Well, they inflicted harm on them. That's where a lot of social contract is built: don't hurt people.

So, just to clarify, if it doesn't affect me personally directly, I have no right to have any opinion on it?

Boy, you sure are tolerant.

So, for example, say you only have dogs, not cats, you would think that it was frankly unacceptable for yourself to form any opinion on the guy who went around feeding the neighbourhood cats into a woodchipper?

Your statement didn't make sense. I don't object to serial killers killing people because I can imagine the pain and fear of those being killed (i.e., empathize with them). I object to serial killers killing because it's wrong to kill people. Empathy might play a role in developing morality, but that is not relevant to what Grannyfis2r said.

Sure, serial killers are easy to find as "wrong". But tell me, how do you feel about soldiers who kill people? Does his self-defense outweigh the moral value of the self-defense of the person he killed? If we feel bad for soldier and not the person he killed... does that make us more "right" than the person's family?

The subjectivity of empathy is why it does not constitute as a moral authority, at least in an objective context. Different people feel differently about different things. That's some shaky ground to be considered authoritative.

But tell me, how do you feel about soldiers who kill people? Does his self-defense outweigh the moral value of the self-defense of the person he killed?

Oh, well, that depends. Why is the soldier in the war in the first place? Did he volunteer? Why did he volunteer? Was he drafted or coerced into the group he's fighting with? Did he kill reluctantly? Did he kill out of instinct? These questions are relevant to how I feel about both soldiers.

I cannot make a 100% correct call without answers, of course, but on the whole, I'd say the act of killing itself is wrong, but in some situations it is excusable. Cheating, however, rarely has such nuances.

The willingness to break commitments to others in a shitty way for temporary gratification. Outright derision? Maybe not. But something else, surely. For repeated cheating (non-temporary case)? Add willful deception and emotional manipulation to the things done.

The problem is philosophical discussion, once it reaches a certain level of abstractness that's beyond empirical verification, becomes more or less irrelevant in the real world as it's nearly impossible to apply it to legislation, social programs, or other practical incarnations.

Someone who cheats is only subjectively in the right or wrong. Everything that is determined to be "right" and "wrong" must be considered in context. If a person cheats, it is generally accepted that unfavorable consequences will befall the people involved in the relationship. However, unfavorable consequences are terrible qualifiers for something being authoritative and objective morality. A more extreme illustration is that of killing someone. Killing people is generally considered bad but it's not common for someone to say a person that killed in self-defense was "wrong" or "evil".

So as an example, a soldier is part of invasion of another country. A resident that sees the soldier as a threat could cause the soldier to perceive the resident as a threat and they try to kill each other. Who is in moral right or wrong here? You have to evaluate the situation with total consideration for context but the more context you add to the equation, the inherently more subjective and muddy the issue becomes. But even at the root of it all, who is ultimately the one to determine if killing is right or wrong? People tend to agree that killing leads to unfavorable consequences, however as mentioned above, even decisions seen as "right" can lead to unfavorable consequences.

So who or what is the moral authority? The closest we can get is the subjective set of commonly held beliefs and rules of the culture an individual is centered in. But that is also subjective, so we're still stuck looking for a truly objective moral authority.

Going back to the cheater, I'm not justifying a cheater's actions. I'm not saying a cheater is right or wrong to do what they did. I will agree that cheating leads to unfavorable consequences and that it is ill-advised to do something that does that because people don't like unfavorable consequences. I empathize with people who have experienced unfavorable consequences. But ultimately, I don't understand the context of the situation, and I'm in no way qualified to go about dispensing moral authority over someone else. It's just bad form.

It's funny that every time I've had this discussion, people think I'm justifying or defending the actions in question. Hopefully you understand differnetly.

Yes, I get this whole moral gray area thing, but cheating is something I have yet to see satisfactorily defended in any way that is not completely self-centered. Killing someone is not always wrong (as in cases of self defense, for example), but I think we can agree that murder is always wrong, pretty much by definition. Similarly, I didn't say being non-monogamous was wrong -- if a couple wants to swing, then they're not really hurting each other by having multiple partners. Cheating, however, is something I still say is wrong in every possibly circumstance. If you're forced into it, it's not cheating, it's rape. If something's not working out in the relationship, you need to sit down with your partner and have a serious discussion, possibly ending the relationship, not just go out and fuck someone else behind their back.

What I asked about was specifically cheating. Please name one single scenario where cheating is right. I will even give half-credit for a scenario where it is not wrong. Randian "as long as I get mine, fuck everyone else" style philosophies do not count.

I like how you try to frame it by saying A is deluded, but if B didn't have explicit permission from A, then B absolutely cheated, and should have communicated their needs better. If an open relationship works for them, cool, but if the relationship should be ended, then B should just end the relationship rather than staying around and stringing along A.

What if someone cheats on your friend and breaks his heart and leaves him an emotional wreck?

Also, you don't think people have the right to disapprove of certain behaviors if it doesn't harm them directly? If my neighbor's house gets robbed, and the thief is caught--he is not a legitimate target of derision because he didn't rob my house? If a driver blows a stop sign and almost hits a kid, is the driver not worthy of derision because it's not my kid?